User talk:James H. Jenkins/Archive 2

DYK for USS Cocopa (ATF-101)

On November 28, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article USS Cocopa (ATF-101), which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Materialscientist (talk) 20:42, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Coronation of the Russian sovereign

First of all, I have to say how sorry I am I couldn't respond sooner. I took a short Wiki-break so I didn't see your message. Now, I am amazed by what you have done to the article! I believe you've created a GA (a soon-to-be-FA)! The number of illustrations is certainly not too high. I will propose some changes on the talk page if I find something that should be changed. Good job! Surtsicna (talk) 18:53, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Oneness Pentecostalism and Arian Category

(Creating this section to move message from above) - Ecjmartin (talk) 13:22, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

I see your request of 17 May 2009 (UTC) to have Oneness Pentecosalism removed from the Arian category has not been acted upon. I found it when I went to post similar. Please take the time to review my argument for having it done. Hopefully, with the explanation for it being necessary, one of the bureaucrats will do it. Of course, any comments are welcome. Thanks. Type Dumper (talk) 19:35, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Just a word of thanks to you for acting on my request. (And just for the record, I am neither Oneness nor Trinitarian either. I do, however, have sympathies and acquaintances who are one or the other.) Type Dumper (talk) 15:38, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank You

Thanks for your kind acknowledgment concerning my small contribution to the Strang article. I hope to make some other adjustments to it in the future, but it's quite a good article as it stands. The subject interests me as I've been to Beaver Island. Some years later due to very unusual circumstances I believe I drove into the driveway of the house that Strang died in. When I say unusual it was because I was passing through without knowledge or interest in finding this location. I had been driving east on Hwy 11 and was forced to make a detour due to a closed bridge. Looking at this building I had a sense of deja vu, and asked an inhabitant if indeed this was the building that I recalled seeing in a picture at Beaver Island or in some book that I had read concerning Strang. They said it was, and gave me some literature. I've never forgotten this experience. Best wishes Dr. Dan (talk) 03:51, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

That's very interesting, as Voree is a rather tiny town!! I was a Latter-day Saint back during the mid-to-late 80's and early '90's, but quickly became dissatisfied with the Utah LDS religion and started to investigate the smaller factions: RLDS or Community of Christ, Temple Lot, Bickertonite, Cutlerite, Fettingite, Elijah Message and Strangite, among others. Back in the summer of '87 I took leave from the Army and went to Voree to visit Bruce Flanders, the Strangite High Priest there (since deceased--RIP). We spent about a week together, discussing Strang and his doctrine and visiting several of the sites, including the house you mentioned. I didn't get to go inside the house, but I did get to see it from the outside, as well as his gravesite in Burlington, the main town site, the part of the White River where Strang baptized for the dead, and the so-called "Hill of Promise" where he claimed to have discovered the Voree Record. Bruce was a wonderful host, very much informed on the history of the area and the peculiar teachings of his church, which I ultimately spent about three years studying (mostly by correspondence and personal reading, as I was in the Army at the time) before I decided not to accept them. Ultimately I rejected LDS-ism altogether (nothing against the Latter Day Saints at all; I just don't believe in their teachings!), and moved on to a different direction in life. I also became interested in Strang because as a boy, I had a fantasy of becoming king over my own island, and Strang intrigued me as someone who'd had the same dreams: marrying into royalty, becoming a king, making a big contribution to the world, etc., but he was able to bring them to life (however temporarily) in the real world. While I do not respect the lies I believe he told, I can respect Strang in many other ways, and I've always enjoyed reading about him. Reading your message about visiting Voree (however inadvertently!) brought back a lot of memories, that's for sure! Thanks again for your contributions, and I look forward to seeing your further imput on the article at a future date! - Ecjmartin (talk) 12:20, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Like yourself I am not an adherent of this religion (Strangite), but unlike yourself, I've never been a member of any part of the LDS family. My feelings towards them are not of a negative nature and are devoid of hostility. Their contributions to society and the United States speak for themselves. During my extensive travels throughout the United States I have also visited Nauvoo, the Carthage Jail, the Kirtland Temple, Salt Lake City and thousands of other unrelated but historically interesting places. Probably due to my taking my boat to Beaver Island (quite a "trip" from Chicago, although it was not non-stop) and becoming familiar with the Strang story, as well as having earlier exposure to various aspects of Mormon history, this inadvertent "detour" to Voree and the déjà vu of seeing that house left me with an unusual and strange feeling. I now realize it was one of those occasional coincidences that makes one pause, but in my case I went on with my life being further unaffected by the experience. Again, best wishes. Dr. Dan (talk) 04:39, 30 January 2010 (UTC) P.S. I find your Userboxes to be enjoyable reading.

Arius

It might be a B already in fact, one thing is that it might need a few more inlines i think, then you could maybe take it to GA Tom B (talk) 01:12, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Hey bro.....I'm not sure.   Are you addressing ME with the "Islam does not belong there" edits and remarks?   Cuz in case you are, just know that I agree with you and it was NOT I who put that on there.   I think it probably was the "69.51.152.180" editor.   Given the time sequence.   But I had nothing to do with it.   The last edit I put was only to put the internal link (and I stated it clearly) for the word "Arianism".   I had zero to do with putting the word "Islam" anywhere on this article.   That's IF you were addressing me or thinking it was me.   The reason I was wondering is cuz your last edit with that remark was RIGHT AFTER my last edit to put the link for the word "Arianism."   So I'm curious as to why.   I had nothing to do with the "Islam" thing at all.   Sweetpoet (talk) 00:51, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I owe YOU the apology.   Cuz guess what.   You were right...I just discovered something.   What you said to me got me thinking.   You said that the word "Islam" for some reason appeared again, right after my edit for the "Arianism" internal link matter.   OK, I'm the type of person who SAVES everything (just about).   I usually copy and paste things to myself, with edits and things for referral and record keeping purposes.  It just came in handy now.   The edit that I did for putting the internal link on the word "Arianism".   So I went back to my copy and searched for the word "Islam" and lo and behold it was THERE!!  But I promise you it was NOT intentional.   The only thing I can think of how this happened, is cuz what I did just before I did the Arianism link thing, was out of curiosity, because I already saw the History and the Islam change thing that you did, I went into the "Revision Page" and "difference" page, just out of curiosity to see where the other guy put "Islam" weirdly.   I'm not sure totally what happened after that, but I MIGHT have accidentally reverted it back to his nonsense with the Islam BY MISTAKE.   So then when I did the internal link for the "Arianism" word, the "Islam" stuff somehow was back there again. (ayayayaya).     10000% ACCIDENTAL........for real.   So no, bro.....I'm the one who owes you the apology.   Cuz even though I did not mean to do that, it was somehow I who did it.   This thing can be confusing at times.   Seeing the Revision Differences, I guess, if you're not careful what you click can cause problems.   My bad.   And I rarely even do that Revision page viewing anyway.   Funny huh.   So yeah, it was "one of those things."   A weird accident.   But anyway, I felt the need to let you know.   Just so you don't think you were really mistaken.   Cuz in a way you actually were right.   It was something I (accidentally) did.   The "Islam" thing somehow came back on the article cuz I did something on the Revision page by mistake.   Well it's ok now....  By the way, why does that "69.51..." guy have this type of stuff going on with this?   Sweetpoet (talk) 01:40, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Kansas City Religion

Thanks for the greatly improved section on church headquarters. We have to be careful that we don't switch from seeming to be anti-Mormon to being anti-Kansas City. While the official church history says the eviction was because of slavery, Jackson County had a substantial claim against Smith otherwise -- notably he claimed that all property from Independence to the state line belonged to the Saints and was to be part of the greater City of Zion. This is the core reason why Independence folks (which most notably included Boggs and Lucas -- the general who pursued them in the Mormon War) were so adamant. Anyway saying the eviction because of slavery is oversimplification. The City of Zion article should be really cool (if I can ever get it started).Americasroof (talk) 14:57, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

I tried very hard to be as NPOV as I could in what I presented there, indicating that slavery and LDS beliefs (without becoming too specific) played a part, as well as Smith's overall vision for their community. In truth, I was thinking about this today at work, and I wonder if there isn't just too much info there to begin with: most of this took place in Independence, rather than KCMO, and the Independence, Missouri article already goes into detail on it. I trimmed it back quite a bit (including the part you mentioned); take a look and tell me what you think, and if you think I trimmed too much, please let me know or feel free to reinsert it. Indeed, this section needs more info to reflect the overall KC religious scene (Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, etc.); I'm going to see what I can do in that regard in the next several days. - Ecjmartin (talk) 23:24, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Looks good. That's enough of a teaser to get folks into those articles. Thanks again for your eloquence.Americasroof (talk) 01:05, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, for your compliment! I added some info to the "religion" section on non-Christian and Catholic/Orthodox/Episcopal religions, to make it truly a cosmopolitan religion section for the "Kansas City" article. I'm hoping someone else will add a little more "meat" to what I wrote to "flesh it out," some! Thanks again for your compliment! - Ecjmartin (talk) 03:22, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Just to let you know....

I agree with your position on that edit war you're having with that 69.51.152.180.   And also to let you know that that person is NOT me.  Just in case someone were to think that since I did make a recent edit too on that article.   It's weird in a way, cuz 69.51.152.180 actually took one of my reference sources (Rowan Williams) and brought it up to the first paragraph that he totally re-did, in a strange way.   Funny huh.   I don't want ANY confusion at all.   This person is NOT me.   I am on YOUR SIDE on this.   Neutrality totally, in articles.   Whether I think Arius was more correct than Athanasius (though I disagree with both in certain ways) is not the issue.   And it was a good point you made about the Roman Catholic Church not having a full existence yet in 325 A.D. (though maybe a fledgling start with Roman Emperor Constantine's edict etc), and also about outright "targeting" Arius etc.   The way the first paragraph was (BEFORE 69.51 totally re-wrote it) seemed more neutral and objective.   And it was definitely better.  So good job in keeping on top of that, and making sure that this article stays undisturbed and un-distorted.   Even if I agreed with Arius 100%, making sloppy slanted remarks will compromise the credibilty of Wikipedia articles and the articles' NPOV.  I just find it funny how this guy (or gal) just doesn't see it.   But yeah, I agree with you.   Keep the first paragraph (especially as you pointed out) safe from bias or questionable insertions.....and keep it reasonably objective.  Thanks again.... Sweetpoet (talk) 06:52, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks so much for your support! I had never suspected that person of being you at all; he (or she) and I have been "around the block" a few times already, and I always figured that they and you were totally separate people. You were always much more civil and nice than he/she was, and I really meant what I wrote when I told him/her I didn't disrespect them, I just disagreed rather sharply with their edits. I did think that the opening paragraph might need a little trimming, though, and so I rewrote it just a little bit, to remove unneeded wording while keeping the original objectivity and NPOV. Since you have also been a major contributor (and a welcome one!) to the Arius article, I deeply appreciate your show of support and encouraging words; they mean a lot more than you know, especially considering your high level of expertise and contributions to this article, yourself. Thanks again!! - Ecjmartin (talk) 11:02, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

no problem.......by the way, do you see the person (using different IP addresses I think) and his insane thing about how Arius did not think Jesus was less than God just because Arius thought the Son came after the Father in time? He somehow is of the position that there's no real proof that Arius believed the Father was greater than the Son in all things. Even though the rest of the article clearly states that, in regard to "coming after the Father" being related. Look at the revision history on this now, in the last few edits. It seems the nuts come out of the woodwork on articles like these sometimes. Tell me what you think. thanks. Sweetpoet (talk) 05:04, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Well-deserved recognition

		The Socratic Barnstar
		Awarded for making such an extremely skilled and eloquent argument that editor convinced another to completly switch sides in a debate on article style and content.--ARTEST4ECHO talk 17:00, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi, my sockpuppet friend

Is it just me, or are we dealing with another loony? [1] Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:30, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

I have no idea. Personally, I'm sorry I ever waded into that discussion--I ought to have known better! I think User 24 ought to be told that if he wanted to reopen this can of worms, HE (or SHE) ought to be compelled to deal with it rather than the rest of us. I'm more than a little upset that he or she (User 24), after running off at the mouth so much about how Mr. Smith's name just HAD to be in there--he (or she) hasn't contributed once that I saw to trying to resolve the ensuing fracas. - Ecjmartin (talk) 10:52, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm starting to think it was a set-up. It looks like JS has changed his mind and now he does want his name promoted as much as possible for political reasons, so I bet he just used an IP address to raise the issue again, and then surprise surprise supporters of JS are there to speak up and agree with the IP. I think they're all well on the way to being blocked as sockpuppets of JS. ... Already the history of the entire recent conversation has been expunged by oversight. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:47, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Wouldn't surprise me a bit. The style, tone and content of the various "users" who weighed in during that discussion seems to lend credence to your theory. That would also explain why "User 24" never showed up in the conversation. Oh well; they'll block these (this?) guy(s?), and we'll have two or three months of peace and quiet (maybe......then again, maybe not!), then it'll all start up again.... - Ecjmartin (talk) 22:21, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

DYK Nom for 15th Regiment Alabama Infantry

Hi. I've nominated 15th Regiment Alabama Infantry, an article you worked on, for consideration to appear on the Main Page as part of Wikipedia:Did you know. You can see the hook for the article here, where you can improve it if you see fit. GregJackP (talk) 14:59, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

DYK for 15th Regiment Alabama Infantry

The DYK project (nominate) 06:02, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Your book

What is it about? __meco (talk) 01:58, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

In 1999, I was asked by a local publisher, Vicki Beck, to take her and her husband on a tour of Mormon historical sites in northern Missouri. She knew that I had been a previous (1985-95) adherent of the Latter Day Saint movement, and also an avid history buff (including Mormon history); to pass the time while we were travelling from Independence to northern Missouri (a distance of about 50 miles or so), I prepared a small presentation designed to relate the underlying causes of the conflict. I endeavored to present the material in such a way as to be completely objective, relating both Mormon and "Gentile" contributions to the state of affairs that led to this tragedy; Vicki so enjoyed my presentation that when we returned, she asked me to turn it into a book, for which she offered to pay me (and did), as well as pay for its publishing and local distribution. The end result was published that year as Casus Belli: Ten Factors that Contributed to the Outbreak of the 1838 "Mormon War" in Missouri. The book was reasonably well received in the local community, and while it's gone out of print (my friend sold her business and retired, and the new owners shut down the publishing end, retaining only my friend's old bookstore), I am still rather proud of it--even if it was only 44 pages long! Recently, I learned that a copy of it ended up at Pacific Union College's library in Angwin, California; I would really enjoy learning how it ended up there! At any event, that's about all there is to tell about it. It appears that a copy of it is for sale on Amazon dot com. I appreciate your enquiry, and hope this answered your question. - Ecjmartin (talk) 02:21, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Oh yes. That was quite interesting. __meco (talk) 02:30, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Resent Edits

		The Cleanup Barnstar
		I just wanted to let you know that I really like your recent edits to List of sects in the Latter Day Saint movement. I have been trying to implement the articles "Peer Review" in order to try to move this to a "Featured list" status. I think you not only cleaned what I had started, but you also really enhanded that article. Thanks.--ARTEST4ECHO talk 12:19, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks so much! I am deeply honored. I think you did just as much as me (if not more) in that department, though, so I'm going to award you the same barnstar, in turn (see your talk page!)! - Ecjmartin (talk) 13:15, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you also. When I went to the page this morning I read your edit summery which said "...if you don't like any (or all) of it, please feel free to edit or revert" I wanted to laugh. I thought it was so much better the way it is now that I thought, if anyone did revert it, I would be mad.--ARTEST4ECHO ^talk 13:26, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your compliment! My only desire is to help, but sometimes I know I can seem overbearing or even dictatorial when I get hold of an article (just look at how many edits I end up making on any given article!), and I don't want to be like that. I really liked the images you chose; I agreed with the reviewer (who did an excellent job, BTW!) that they greatly enhance the article. I was thinking of adding more images, of LDS Temple Square, RLDS Auditorium and Temple, Temple Lot, etc.--at the bottom of the article, though, as a gallery, rather than in messing up the coherence of the lists themselves by inserting them there. But what do you think? - Ecjmartin (talk) 13:33, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Church of Christ (Assured Way)

The article Church of Christ (Assured Way) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

no evidence of notability

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 02:18, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Articles for deletion nomination of Church of Christ (Assured Way)

I have nominated Church of Christ (Assured Way), an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Church of Christ (Assured Way). Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 07:05, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Hello, James H. Jenkins. You have new messages at Prsaucer1958's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

--Pgallert (talk) 13:18, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

The comments made at Image Gallery II

Regarding the comments you made at Talk:List_of_sects_in_the_Latter_Day_Saint_movement#Image_Gallery_II. Since the talk page is supposed to be limited to things about the article, I thought I would say something to you here instead. Don’t sell yourself short. Your not getting the {{image Gallery}} to work had nothing to do with "intelligence", but with the tempate itself. The formatting is very confusing. It took me quite some time to figure out how to get the {{image Gallery}} setup done right, and I make computer programs for a living. I still can't get the formating mentioned here. You seem to have a lot of knowledge on the various sect in the LDS region, so again don’t' sell yourself short.

Just so you know. When you add photos to the gallery here is the format

"|File name only (leave off the "File:")|Alternative text|caption"

Leaving off the "File:" is what gets me all the time.--ARTEST4ECHO ^talk 18:08, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks a lot! That helps me immensely. Should be easier, next time. - Ecjmartin (talk) 20:51, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

John Whitmer Society and Assured Way Church article

Comment The John Whitmer Historical Association provides a link to the Church of Christ (Assured Way) http://www.jwha.info/links/default.asp This list of links is only to what appears to be notable organizations - not an ad hoc link of all organizations. This inclusion indicates to me that John White Historical Association consideres the assured way to be notable. Prsaucer1958 (talk) 20:19, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for that info! Now, we just need to find a way to work that reference into the article, someway.... - Ecjmartin (talk) 20:55, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Comment John Hamer, the author of "The Scattering of the Saints" is a Wikipedia user see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:John_Hamer perhaps he can help - you might want to leave a messaage on his talk page. Prsaucer1958 (talk) 23:28, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the info! I just left him that message. I also posted to the deletion page a section on the latest developments in that article's deletion debate; you might be interested in reading it, as well. Cheers, and thanks again! - Ecjmartin (talk) 23:47, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Comment Please download this PDF http://www.jwha.info/newsletter/pdfs/issue75.pdf There is a chart on page 9 of this PDF - Draves (of the Assured way) is mentioned. Read the chart. One can truthfuly say, that Draves of the assured way was of interest to a scholary conference. Prsaucer1958 (talk) 00:40, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! He's definitely mentioned there, and the chart shows the Elijah Message church having split into three different sects (I know nothing about the other two). However, since nothing specifically says "The Assured Way" in that newsletter, I can't see being able to use it (much as I'd like to). They're still going to shoot it down in flames. I'm hoping for something from Leonard Draves, whom I spoke with today, explaining to him what we need by way of "reputable, third-party sources." I'm also hoping to get to the CofChrist Temple Library this week, and see if I can't find John Hamer's book there. Or, hopefully John himself will answer my message with the appropriate information. - Ecjmartin (talk) 00:57, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Hey guys --- I added some references and I made a few fixes based on the published information in Scattering of the Saints. Hopefully that will help. John Hamer (talk) 04:01, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Original Research

Ecjmartin: I read talk pages about your Assured Way church article. You're getting some heat for doing original research, which is obviously not wikipedia's mission. However it is JWHA's mission. If you are interested in interviewing Leonard Draves and others and presenting an article on this church at JWHA's annual conference or publishing it in our annual journal, that's precisely the place where you should be presenting original research. Keep up the good work. John Hamer (talk) 04:56, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Church of Christ (Assured Way)

Thanks for your work on this article, and sorry for any heat you felt from the AfD process. I !voted this article "Weak delete" in the hope that new information would come in, and I'm glad to see it did. I've now altered my !vote to a "speedy keep." There is no way the article will be deleted now. The books cited amply satisfy the notability requirement, and my question about evidence of existence between 1994 and 2004 has also been answered by John Hamer's explanation that a third church, Church of Christ with the Elijah Message, Inc., was involved. I've also been doing my own reading on the history of the Hedrickite churches, which does seem fascinating. Once again, thanks for your work, and apologies for the stresses of the "refining fire" that is AfD. -- Radagast3 (talk) 09:16, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

By the way, you will note I've removed the Adherents.com reference, which, from the 1996 date, must have referred to the Church of Christ with the Elijah Message, Inc., not to the Church of Christ (Assured Way). -- Radagast3 (talk) 09:22, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for all of your help. As I said, I completely understand where you were coming from; and I appreciate your apology, though I don't really feel you had any need to apologize--you were simply doing what you should have been doing, according to the guidelines, and I accept that. In the end, it all turned out for the best, as this "refining fire" you spoke of inevitably led to Mr. Hamer's entrance into the matter, which in turn gave us the references that we needed. I'm just glad that the article gets to stay, as I really believe in the idea of Wikipedia being a compendium of knowledge on even the smallest subjects, so long as their viable. Your playing "devil's advocate", as it were, helped to take this article to the next level. Thank you very much. - Ecjmartin (talk) 11:23, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Glad you feel that way. AfD can be stressful (articles I've started have been AfD'ed as well), but sometimes it helps to bring out key sources and information, as it did in this case, and then it's eventually worthwhile. -- Radagast3 (talk) 11:49, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree. Thanks again for everything! - Ecjmartin (talk) 12:01, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

And I see the AfD has now closed. -- Radagast3 (talk) 01:29, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

It has (thank God!). Thanks again for all your input and help! - Ecjmartin (talk) 10:38, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Photo of the Church of Christ (Cutlerites)

Dear Sir, thank you for your permission to use your beautiful photo of the church building. I have just included it in my German article. Do you know how many members the Church of Christ (Cutlerites) has today? If so, please let me know.

I read that you are interessted in the history of central Europe. I live in Germany in the historic city of Hildesheim and I wrote three articles in English about my city: Historic Market Place, Hildesheim, Lappenberg and Butchers' Guild Hall, Hildesheim. Native speakers corrected the mistakes. I took all the photos in these articles myself. Perhaps they are interessting for you. The photos you took of church buildings (Fettingite Church, Remnant Church, Restored Church etc.) are very interesting. May I use them if I tranlate the articles into German? Wishing you all the best, --Torbenbrinker (talk) 22:15, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind words and comments. I am glad you have enjoyed the photos, and you are free to use any of them that you like, since I have placed them into the "public domain". I have several German ancestors, and I was stationed in Nurnberg myself from 1985-86 when I was in the Army, and I deeply loved that city and Germany in general. Just this last weekend, I downloaded a bunch of photos of Nurnberg from Flickr and other websites, and it really took me back to a very pleasant time in my life.

I had a chance to read your articles; they were all quite good, and you are certainly an excellent photographer. Thanks for sharing your town and its beautiful sites with the rest of us, and thanks again for your compliments! - Ecjmartin (talk) 00:11, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Reliable Sourece

Are you familiar with the webpage By Commen Consent http://bycommonconsent.com? John Hamer has many posts there. Do you that this site is a reliable source for Wikipedia articles on LDS movements? Prsaucer1958 (talk) 01:41, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure of the exact Wikipedia policy on blogs, but I've been told in the past that a blog site is not a reliable source in and of itself. However, it can potentially lead its reader to valid sources, through links to other sites, magazines, books, etc. That, at least, is my opinion. - Ecjmartin (talk) 01:45, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

RE: The Pound Sterling

You have to really watch Mr. Hathorn. He made edits to another article that were just wrong, and when I asked him to, he would not fix it. At least he provided a reference this time. But, double check his contributions for accuracy. > Best O Fortuna (talk) 23:37, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't have access to that particular reference, so that will be hard to do. The way it is written, it really doesn't "mesh" with the rest of the article very well. Given that a reference is provided, I can't remove it unless I can find that reference, or another reference for the same period that says something diffrent. But thanks much for the "heads up." I'm glad to know that information, and I'll see what I can do to look into it. - Ecjmartin (talk) 23:45, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

You might try:

"Sterling Price" 1864 Louisiana Shreveport @ Google Books and look at the entries. It looks like "March 18, 1864". > Best O Fortuna (talk) 00:12, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very much. I'm bogged down in something else right now, but let me take a gander at it over the next few days, and I'll see what I can learn. I deeply appreciate the reference. - Ecjmartin (talk) 00:13, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

• Shalhope, Robert E. (1971). Sterling Price: Portrait of a Southerner:

"On March 18, 1864, Kirby Smith ordered Price's old division sent to Shreveport immediately.7 Responding with alacrity, Price had his troops on the march to Kirby Smith on the twentieth."

• Forsyth, Michael J. (2002). The Red River Campaign of 1864 and the loss by the Confederacy of the Civil War.

1) "February 1864" -- page 52: Simultaneously, he had Price and Taylor fall back from forward positions toward Shreveport. At the right moment he would concentrate the troops in one of the districts— either Arkansas or west Louisiana — to stop Steele or Banks.

2) "March 18" -- page 60: "On March 18 he ordered Sterling Price to rush his infantry — Churchill's and Parsons' divisions — to Shreveport to mass on Banks, leaving Price with about 5,000 cavalry to spar with Steele. Once he had turned Banks back, he planned to shift forces back to Taylor in a dispatch instructing him to retreat slowly toward Shreveport and admonishing him that "a general engagement should not be risked without hopes of success.".

This book might be good:

• Castel, Albert (1968). General Sterling Price and the Civil War in the West. Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press.

About the bogged down, me too.

Thanks for the references! Hopefully, I can get to this by the coming weekend. - Ecjmartin (talk) 01:18, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

List of sects in the Latter Day Saint movement

		The Photographer's Barnstar
		On top of all the major editing you did, this is for all your help in both locating and actually going out in real life to take most of the photographs now appearing in the newly Featured List, List of sects in the Latter Day Saint movement Without these photos, moving this list up to FL Status probably wouldn’t have happen. You helped make obtaining FL status possible.--ARTEST4ECHO talk 13:18, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

		The Teamwork Barnstar
		Due to all the editing you help with, it become possible to move List of sects in the Latter Day Saint movement to Featured List Status, Without your help this wouldn’t have happen. The edit made between Good Olfactory, Surv1v4l1st, yourself, and myself account for 70.5% of edit made on that page.--ARTEST4ECHO talk 13:46, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for all your help. FYI: Since alot of the edit you made we directly related to getting the this moved to FL Statute I made sure that you were listed as a co-nominator (see Wikipedia:WBFLN). Therefore, you get to put this user box on your page.:

This user has written or significantly contributed to one featured lists on Wikipedia.

--ARTEST4ECHO ^talk 13:28, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Mormonism and Islam WikiProject article quality grade

Hello, James H. Jenkins. You have new messages at talk:Mormonism and Islam.
Message added --ARTEST4ECHO ^talk 15:18, 21 July 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Professionalism

Thanks for all your help in Latter-day Saint Movement Project articles, and for commenting positively on a couple of recent contributions of mine. In a way, I'm a friendly rival, in that I might upload/contribute a few things which I feel improve upon that which you have already contributed -- difficult to do, since your approach is so competent. I regard the eruditeness of you and John Hamer as guide and inspiration to my efforts here, and will readily accept constructive criticism from you both, as well as from many other aficionados of the LDSM project. EGDJ (talk) 07:23, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Ecjmartin, I'm feeling some embarrassment to have occupied so much of your Discussion Page with the Fettingite material. I hope you don't mind, but I've archived all of that, this way you can peruse it at your convenience, and restore any of it or none of it to your Discussion Page (or my Discussion Page) as you see fit. I plan to introduce more information to the article about Fetting himself, and will be grateful for your continued assistance in presenting the information wisely. EGDJ (talk) 17:13, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Possible vandalism at List of sects in the Latter Day Saint movement

Hi.

It seems that editor 198.60.92.2 is making many strange changes to your List of sects in the Latter Day Saint movement article. You may wish to keep an eye on that editor. He might be a vandal? Prsaucer1958 (talk) 00:44, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. I've been bogged down in something else, and I hadn't noticed until this evening. Looks like ARTIST4ECHO got to him before I could, but I definitely appreciate the "heads up". I'm thinking that he's not so much a vandal as a far-too-ardent Utah LDS who wants his own particular denomination credited as "the" original (and thus, the only "true") Latter Day Saint church. I used to be a Utah LDS myself (many years ago!), and I'm very familiar with the "type". I don't consider him a vandal, per se (unless he reveals himself to be!), but rather an over-zealous partisan of his particular group. But I'll definitely keep an eye on him, as we definitely don't want anyone to start doing that. Thanks again for letting me know, and for all your good work on the Latter Day Saint-related articles! - Ecjmartin (talk) 01:45, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm not the above individual, but the one who placed 'Brighamites' for the title in the section. 'Brighamites' was to keep consistency in the listings since other groupings are also known by the leader they followed. ie. Josephites, Cutlerites, Strangites. The official LDS church has it's own listing just as other churches. In reality, the LDS church should be listed along with the other sects that broke off of them in the west. Just as an example under 'Josephites' the Community of Christ is listed with other sects that broke off of them. I understand the desire to be identified seperate from 'Mormon fundamentalists' & other break-offs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.193.185.36 (talk) 18:18, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

I think you make a valid point here, at least in regard to usage of the "Brighamite" moniker. If we refer to others as "Josephites," "Strangites," etc., then certainly the term "Brighamite" would have a place, as well. I diagree, however, with the idea of putting the main LDS (Utah) organization in with the others, as it is the parent organization of all other Rocky Mountain/"Brighamite" sects, and I think that it should be listed separately, at the head of the list (as the other three groups are factional groupings of sects with similar origins, backgrounds, and/or doctrines). To address your point, I put "sometimes referred to as "Brighamites" in parenthases in the "Rocky Mountain Saint" header; I think that's the best place for the "Brighamite" listing. If you think it should just be shortened to "Brighamite" in parenthases, that's fine, too. But I wouldn't agree with removing the "Rocky Mountain Saint" header altogether, nor with changing the organization of the sects listed in that section. But that's just my opinion. - Ecjmartin (talk) 23:22, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

To be consistent than with your listing of 'Rocky Mountain Saints - Brighamites'...what are your thoughts then with adding the the various 'ites' identified with 'Prarie Saints'? You make a good point about some of the other groupings being considered 'factions' with eachother. In fact, there is a lawsuit currently on appeal between the Community of Christ & Devon Park Restoration Branch in Missouri. Devon Park is attempting to have the court release the name 'Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints' & 'RLDS' to the public domain for use by independant restoration branches (similar to terms such as Methodist, Baptist, Lutheren, etc.) since the Community of Christ officially adopted it's new name/identity in 2001 & only retains the RLDS name to keep others from it's use. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.193.185.36 (talk) 16:02, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

I think I'm going to revert it back to what it was before. As << Artist 4 Echo >> observed, the moniker "Brighamite" is used in the preliminary information, and all of the other editors on this list felt (as I do) that it was just fine without using the "Brighamite" moniker in the title itself. Perhaps the thing to do would be to come up with better names to replace the other "ites"; maybe that would be the thing to do. - Ecjmartin (talk) 21:15, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Alexis Toth

Good work on providing the references. I've rewritten some of them and asked for a few more citations. It's somewhat natural that this is going to be a minefield, so I'll tread carefully.

JASpencer (talk) 14:39, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I've tried to provide the references you requested; the quotation is from a blog site, but it directly quotes the book itself, so I put it into the reference, as opposed to an in-text quotation. If you would like an in-text quotation better, that'd be fine by me, as well. - Ecjmartin (talk) 15:58, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Red Cross parcel

— Rlevse • Talk • 12:03, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

List of sects in the Latter Day Saint movement

I think that the addting of "Sometimes called "Brighamites"" to the "Rocky Mountain Saints" is a bit redundent After all the Categorizing the churches says "Rocky Mountain Saints – Sometimes called "Brighamites" or "Mormons",..." However, I do trust you and the issue isn't a hugh point for me so I'm going to leave it. I think the IP editor is trying to push his own POV onto this list. --ARTEST4ECHO ^talk 12:16, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

You may be right. I'm going to revert the change; as I told him, maybe the thing to do would be to come up with other names to replace the "Josephite," etc. monikers in the "Prairie Saints" section, but personally, I think the list was just fine the way it was, as you said here. - Ecjmartin (talk) 21:16, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

I think this IP editor is confusing where "Josephite" comes from. I think he thinks its JS jr., which some people think supports that groups calim of succesion. At frist I thought that way to, untill I read the discription at top. --ARTEST4ECHO ^talk 01:46, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

That may be true, but my idea is that he simply opposes the use of "Josephite", "Hedrickite", etc. without the corresponding use of "Brighamite" to describe the LDS. This mindset (if indeed this is his mindset, and I have no way of knowing that for sure; you may be right, after all) arises from the times when such monikers were used in a disparaging manner--but this is not the case on this list, as we've taken great pains to point out. Hence, I don't accept the argument for "Brighamite" inclusion that comes from that mindset. So why use "Josephite," "Hedrickite," etc. without using "Brighamite?" There are many different factions of Prairie Saints (I speak here of the Josephites, Hedrickites, etc. each as a self-contained whole, not the individual sects within each faction--or "Factional Group", as I prefer to call them), whereas all Rocky Mountain Saints are Brighamites, tracing themselves as they each ultimately do to the Utah LDS church. I think that given this fact, the list is arranged the very best way that it can be, and there is no need for "Brighamite" in the title. I had thought so at first, but I now disagree. It's not a perfect setup, but I still think (as you seem to, as well) that it's the best one we've got. But like I said, I could be wrong about all of this! - Ecjmartin

(talk) 02:12, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Hey guys, The use of 'ites' is not the problem & is completely understandable, however with not having the same distinction for the Utah church isn't in keeping with the harmony/flow of the listings in general. The LDS church is given special priority above all other groups with it's seperate listing, moniker with official name & no 'Brighamite' designation in the listings. Simply by changing the 'ites' to 'followers of' still has the same problem in that the LDS church doesn't have 'followers of Brigham Young' as the moniker for it's listing. Let's not mistakenly assume things about eachother. Of course I know 'Josephites' refers to Joseph Smith, III. Interestingly enough, when the LDS realized the RLDS liked the term, they began calling them 'Reorganites'. Joseph F. Smith (LDS) may have been a big pusher on that switch. I'm not trying to be mean or push an agenda, but I do happen to know a few things beyond personal POV. Let's see...my wife & her family are LDS/Mormon, My folks & some family are Community of Christ, I'm RLDS Restorationist (owned a bookstore in Nauvoo, IL for 5 years), ex-wife is involved in the Joint Conference of Restoration Branches (which is causing some seperation between Independent RLDS)

The "harmony/flow" of the list is just fine, the way it is. The listing of the LDS church separately is NOT giving it a "special priority above all other groups;" rather, it reflects that it is the parent church in the "Rocky Mountain Saint" group of factions. Historians of the Restoration Movement have traditionally used "Rocky Mountain Saint" to refer to the Utah LDS church and all sects which originated from it, while they have used "Prairie Saint" to refer to other groups of sects, each of which followed a contemporary rival (in absence of a better term) of Brigham Young for church leadership. Various groupings of sects within the "RMS" group have emerged, such as "Fundamentalists," "New Mormon," etc., which have caused the list to be set up the way it is here. This is not done to kowtow to the Utah LDS church, nor is it done to give it a "special priority above all other groups;" it is done because organizationally, this is the only way that makes sense. It is not necessary to have "followers of Brigham Young" added to this name, especially since has already been indicated in the "Factional Breakdown" section under "Rocky Mountain Saints." - Ecjmartin (talk) 11:34, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Tobacco

Hi Ecjmartin, hope all is well. Actually, I believe Tobacco is forbid, see the Tobacco fatwa article. Keep up the good work anyway. Scythian1 (talk) 04:34, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for enlightening me! Having seen Muslims who smoked, and having not seen a prohibition of tobacco in the Quran when I read it, I just assumed it was permitted (maybe not Halal, but permitted nonetheless). "You learn something new every day," as they say!! Thanks for letting me know this! - Ecjmartin (talk) 11:03, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

AOA

See my edit comment here, if you hadn't already. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:03, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

I was a LDS/Mormon for ten years (not that this makes me any sort of overwhelming expert on it!), and we were always taught that "a prophet is only a prophet when he is acting as such." (Joseph Smith) In the article that we've both used as a reference here, it clearly states that not every word that comes out of a "prophet's" mouth is necessarily doctrine and scripture, only that which has been officially presented to the church as such, and approved by "common consent." I was always told that the Independence = Garden of Eden idea, while certainly stated by Joseph Smith himself, was not official church doctrine (unlike the Adam-ondi-Ahman = Adam's home after Eden idea), because unlike the Adam-ondi-Ahman idea (which was presented as a D&C revelation, and approved as such), the Garden of Eden idea had never been officially presented to, or approved by, the membership. All of that having been said, I recognize and accept your point, that there's no hard source for the infomation I put in there about it not being official doctrine, so I have removed it from the Adam-Ondi-Ahman, Kansas City, Missouri and Jackson County, Missouri articles. Take a look, and tell me if how I've reworded it will work for you, in light of the things you pointed out. Cheers! - Ecjmartin (talk) 01:49, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree that determining what is doctrine in the LDS Church can be a difficult issue, because different people have different opinions about it. Some take a strict stance and argue that only things in the scriptures or declared by the unanimous voice of the First Presidency and Qof12 and accepted by common consent is doctrine; others are more liberal in their interpretation and are far more likely to accept statements of prophets and apostles or church manuals as doctrinal. To stay on the safe side, instead of saying something is "not doctrine", I've found it helpful to reword and say something like "not in LDS scriptures" or "not in the scriptural canon" or something like that. Your edits are fine with me, though if you wanted to add something about the teachings not being in scripture and not taught in manuals, etc., that could be fine. It is true that it is a relatively peripheral issue in the grand scheme the church, one that probably many active members haven't heard of even. Thanks, Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:29, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your feedback! I think I'm going to just leave it pretty much the way it is; I think it's best the way it's worded now, given all we've discussed here. - Ecjmartin (talk) 02:38, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Question

I was just wondering if you could explain of why you reverted my edits.? Monterey Bay (talk) 03:22, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Nothing "personal;" it was simply because those names were already mentioned in the paragraph immediately preceeding that sentence. It was not necessary (in my opinion, at least) to state them again, there. - Ecjmartin (talk) 03:35, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Alrighty then! --Monterey Bay (talk) 03:28, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia Campus Ambassadors wanted in Troy, Alabama

Hi! I'm leaving you this message because you're listed as a Wikipedian in Alabama. The Wikipedia Ambassador Program is currently looking for Campus Ambassadors to help with Wikipedia assignments at Troy University, which will be participating in the Public Policy Initiative for the Spring 2011 semester. The role of Campus Ambassadors will be to provide face-to-face training and support for students on Wikipedia-related skills (how to edit articles, how to add references, etc.). This includes doing in-class presentations, running workshops and labs, possibly holding office hours, and in general providing in-person mentorship for students.

Prior Wikipedia skills are not required for the role, as training will be provided for all Campus Ambassadors (although, of course, being an experienced editor is a plus).

I know Alabama is a big state, but if you happen to live near Troy and you are interested in being a Wikipedia Campus Ambassador, or know someone else from Troy who might be, please email me or leave a message on my talk page.--Sage Ross - Online Facilitator, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 16:06, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

ACW flag templates

Hello, I noticed that you reverted an editor for changing the dates in ACW flag templates. Could you evaluate their contributions and tell me whether this is vandalism or not. If you look at the history of their talk page, you'll see that I had tagged them with warnings but then retracted them because I was uncertain about the nature of the edits. If they are vandalism, it would help if you warned them...and I could help in the future. Thank you,
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 01:50, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

I've taken a look at several of his entries, and (contrary to my initial impressions) it does not appear that he is vandalizing the articles. I initially wondered about what he (or she) was up to, but a comparison of his (or her) flag icon changes with the dates given for the different official Confederate flags indicates to me that he (or she) seems to be trying to get the correct flag icon for the month and year in question (per the flag article)--which does not always seem to correspond with the icon year template. I think that if he (or she) comes back and changes the icons again, I'm going to check a little closer before simply reverting it. The one complaint I have with him (or her) is that he (or she) did not bother to tell us WHY he (or she) was making the changes--that would have made a great difference, to be sure! - Ecjmartin (talk) 02:17, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Very helpful...and yes, I appreciate you putting the cue on my talk page to this page as I would have probably missed it because of being busy elsewhere. Because they are a single-purpose editor that only changes dates on the flag templates, and does not leave edit summaries, it can closely resemble insidious vandalism. We would expect most editors to do other varieties of edits. Thank you for clearing things up for me.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 15:13, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Mormonism and Wikipedia

Hello,

The following is a link to an interesting article on Mormonism and Wikipedia:

http://www.mormontimes.com/article/19551/Wiki-Wars-In-battle-to-define-beliefs-Mormons-and-foes-wage-battle-on-Wikipedia

Prsaucer1958 (talk) 12:29, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks so much for sending this! I just read it, and found it extremely interesting. "John Foxe" has had a lot of imput into the "Golden Plates" article; I can tell you that! I've not done a whole lot of editing in particular articles that he's worked on (though I did put some Strangite Mormon stuff into the "Golden Plates" article), but I could tell that he was not a friend to Mormonism, and it's interesting (to say the least!) to hear who he really is. I was a Latter Day Saint (of the LDS, RLDS, Temple Lot and Culterite persuasions--and also studied Strangism and Bickertonism for a few years--all at different times, mind you!) from 1985-95, but left all that long ago. I was an enemy to Mormonism for a short time thereafter, until my own spiritual journey took me completely outside of Christianity--which significantly altered my perspective on the whole matter, and gave me a sense of objectivity that I'd never had before. Myself, I believe Joseph Smith was an imposter, but I also believe Jesus Christ was an imposter (no offense intended to you or anyone else by those statements)--and yet, I believe both men nevertheless accomplished great (and even some good) things in their lives.

I think it should be possible to write objectively on Joseph Smith and Mormonism, but I remember back to my own Mormon and anti-Mormon days, and I can understand how very difficult it is to find neutrality on this matter. I admire folks like yourself who really try to do that, while remaining true to (in some instances) your own Mormon or non-Mormon beliefs. Anyway, sorry to ramble on; thanks again for sending this, and best luck in your editing (and in general)!! Cheers! - Ecjmartin (talk) 14:26, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Mormonism and Islam

Hello Sir, I saw your recent undo on "Revision history of Mormonism and Islam" section on the "" page. I think that the point is misunderstood by English speakers, as Muslim is actually an Arabic word; not a name. Therefore an English speaker, reading an English text, will think that Muslims are crazy to say that Abraham is Muslim. It basically means that Abraham was a submitter to God, which makes a better sense in English. Please explain your point of view! Take care :) Adamrce (talk) 06:12, 21 February 2011 (UTC)AdvertAdam

Not at all. The edit I reverted, as I recall, had nothing to do with Abraham, but rather your wording that said that Christians "submit to Christ" rather than "to God." That remark is inaccurate, since Christians (rightly or wrongly) consider "Christ" and "God" to be one and the same. From the theological and neutral points of view, Christians indeed submit to God, as they understand Him, hence your wording was (in my judgment, and I would wager that of the majority of editors who might examine it) inaccurate. I understand what you say about Abraham being Muslim, as I understand the Muslim claim that the Islam practiced by Abraham might not have been exactly the same in terms of rituals, etc. as that practiced by Muslims today, but that the basic beliefs were identical. Nothing in my revert was intended to be "personal" in any way; I merely felt that your wording on that, while undoubtedly made in good faith, was still inaccurate. That was the reason for my revert. Cheers, and best wishes! - Ecjmartin (talk) 12:36, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks sir for your details. I actually ment the origin of the word, not their believe :), as I also believe in Christianity and the Bible; however, I understand your concern, which is totally logical of course.

Anyways, I'm new here so I think I need to use (submitter to God) instead of --submitter to God-- for Muslim? As I'm use to only write in MLA academic papers. Adamrce (talk) 06:12, 21 February 2011 (UTC)AdvertAdam

In my opinion, I would simply put it as "Muslim," and leave it at that. Readers can look up the term or the article entitled Muslim and read that "Muslim" means "submitter to God" without anyone having to state it here. That, at least, is my opinion. If you still felt the need to make that point in this article, I would only do it once, and no more than that. But, as I said, that's just my opinion; other editors might think differently about it. - Ecjmartin (talk) 12:35, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Hello again sir. I removed what you reversed because there's different opinions about that point: some explaining that it meant Jesus' soul didn't suffer nor feel the pain, because he was replaced by a look-a-like. Anyways, using a primary source like that can cause confusion, especially after reading the following verse, [19:33] "And peace be upon me the day I was born, the day I die, and the day I get resurrected". AdvertAdam (talk) 07:49, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but mainstream Muslim sources all indicate that the death and resurrection of Jesus are both something that will take place in the future, after the time of the Mahdi and Jesus' ultimate defeat of the Dijjal--both of which are future events in Muslim eschatology, not events that happened in the past. I disagree with you vehemently about the use of this particular primary source: if the Qur'an, the holy book of the Muslim religion, clearly states that Jesus did not die or was crucified, what is there to challenge, there? I'm reverting back to what I wrote, and changing the wording slightly to indicate that it's the Qur'an itself that says this (in case there are those who want to say that it actually says something else). There is a huge debate in Islam concerning the "look-alike" theory; while many Muslims certainly believe that, there are others who believe different ideas as to how Jesus managed to avoid the crucifixion. However, when the Qur'an says "he did not die, nor was he crucified" (or words to that effect), there's no real room for debate, there. I understand your good-faith objections here, but I respectfully disagree with them. - Ecjmartin (talk) 11:10, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Russian constitution of 1906

Hello, James H. Jenkins. You have new messages at FactStraight's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Thanks!

 ;~) --Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 14:06, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Re: Latter Day Saint bolding

See my edit summary here. Regarding your edit summary that preceded that, I see where you're coming from, but I'm not sure we need to depart from the usual means of bolding redirects on first usage in the article. I'm not sure if you were unaware that "Latter Day Saint" was already bolded, or if you are saying that either the first two uses of "Latter Day Saint" should be bolded or neither should be, depending on whether "Latter-day Saint" is bolded. I think we need just two bolded: the first time "Latter Day Saint" appears and the first time "Latter-day Saint" appears.
On a related note, I think that there might be a potential argument that "Latter-day Saint" should redirect to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints rather than where it redirects to now if it only ever refers to adherents of that church, but this might be slicing the ham way too thinly, since it does make sense that Latter Day Saint and Latter-day Saint redirect to the same place. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:16, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

On the bolding, I'll have to disagree with you on that, even though I know this sets me against "normal procedure" on Wikipedia. My reason is this: by bolding the name "Latter-day Saint" in that entry, it appears (at least to me) to be giving a prominence to the Utah LDS church (as compared to the others). Their spelling of "Latter-day Saint" gets bolded, while the "Latter Day Saint" spelling used by the CoC and others doesn't--to me, at least, this makes it appear that the Utah LDS church is somehow "better" or more worthy of attention than the others, since it has the bolded spelling as opposed to the others--and people will be naturally drawn to the bolded text. The main term is "Latter Day Saint;" the fact that one church (or more) spells it one way, while the others spell it the other, does not put one above the others in my opinion (and I know you'd wholeheartedly agree, here, as you and I are coming at this from completely different angles!), as the bolding seems (again, to me at least) to indicate. It's cosmetic, I know, but people are drawn to cosmetics--witness the power of modern advertising! To me, italicizing both of them makes each spelling equal, and "equalizes" the organizations without giving an undue and undeserved (in this context, anyway) prominence to either. I know this sounds convoluted, but am I making any sense?

In terms of the redirect thing, I might create a special disamb article for "Latter-day Saint that would offer redirects--first to the LDS church article you mentioned, and second to this article here, for those who just happened to use the Utah LDS spelling. That would allow readers the option of going to either article. But I would not just redirect it straight to the LDS church article itself; I'd redirect to the disambig article I just mentioned, instead. That, at least, is my opinion. - Ecjmartin (talk) 16:42, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Re the first issue: yes, I do understand your point. The fact that "Latter Day Saint" appears before the bulleted points about the specific churches while "Latter-day Saint" does not is the reason this anomaly is created. As I examine WP:MOSBOLD, I see that it's not even a cut-and-dried "rule" that redirected terms are bolded (it says synonymous terms are, but in this case the terms aren't really synonymous with the article title), so I guess I see no problem with just italicizing both as you had suggested.

As for the other redirect issue, I agree it may be inappropriate to just redirect the "-d" version to the LDS Church article. I think I'm basically happy with the current setup. Creating a new DAB page might just be over-complicating things. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:24, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Thanks for all your contributions--which have been more than valuable--and cheers!! - Ecjmartin (talk) 23:29, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

CofC and Latter Day Saints issue

Re this issue, the source referred to states, under the entry for "Saints": "It is not consistent with Community of Christ identity to use Saints in reference to church members in official publications." I assumed that was a fairly authoritative statement that they don't refer to themselves as Saints anymore. I was under the impression that that is why they renamed their periodical from Saints Herald to Herald, and other similar changes. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:02, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

That may be; they seem so eager to shed their Joseph Smith heritage (I've lived in Independence 21 years, and watched it happen, believe me!) and wholeheartedly embrace what their Apostle Tyree once called "the Mixture," that nothing they do surprises (or really concerns) me, anymore. I think it's sad, but it's none of my business (I'm pretty much agnostic, myself, anymore), and they have a perfect right to realign themselves in any way they like without having to hear my two-cents worth about it (and believe me, they hear a LOT about it, from a lot of folks--the Restoration Branches movement is a case in point). However, standard colloquial usage still assigns them this title, even if the organization has rejected it for official use. I think I'll put something in there to that effect; give me a moment, then take a look and tell me what you think--I think what I'm about to put could lay this issues to rest for both of us. Thanks for pointing that out; I hadn't seen that entry, so I definitely needed to know that. - Ecjmartin (talk) 11:23, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, it looks good. I'm not sure how big of an issue it is to the CofC right now and say, how offended a member would be to be referred to as a "Saint" or "Latter Day Saint", but I have noticed a drift away from the terminology lately, if nothing else. I visited Independence once shortly after the CC temple was completed—it seemed like a very nice town but certainly it has some interesting religious aspects to it. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:25, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Glad you like it, and thanks for your comments on this--and for providing this info in the first place! I think it would depend on the CofC member in question on the offense issue; most of the ones I know don't seem offended at all by "Latter Day Saint"; call them a "Mormon", on the other hand, and the fur will fly!! I think the whole thing with trashing the "Latter Day Saint" monkier comes from their top brass, and is part of their ongoing effort to remove practically every active association with the peculiar distinctives of Joseph Smith's gospel: the Book of Mormon, the concept of "Zion", etc. About the only Latter Day Saint distinctive the CofC's leadership retains is their belief in contemporary revelation, through their current president/prophet. Everything else seems designed to conform to a super-liberal Methodist vision of religion, not a traditional Latter Day Saint one. But that is only my personal opinion! - Ecjmartin (talk) 00:30, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Possible New LDS Sect

Hi, You might want to check out this possible new LDS sect. http://www.reorganizedchurch.org/

Prsaucer1958 (talk) 21:42, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for sending this on! I hadn't heard about this, but then again, I'm not so much "in the loop" on Restorationism (even though I live in thst ultimate "Mecca of Mormonism", Independence, MO!) anymore as I used to be. This sounds like the latest in a series of attempts to "reorganize the Reorganization", as it were--it certainly isn't the first, and probably won't be the last. As an agnostic, I really don't have any personal stake in it, anymore, but it would be nice in a way to see the Restoration Branches be able to put together a viable organization. But without a prophet/leader that all (or at least a significant portion) of them can accept, I don't see how it can really succeed. That's where the original Reorganization differed: they had "Young Joseph," and that was the difference-maker. Without him, they would have probably been just another of the many sects that arose during that timeframe--with him, they became the second-largest and second-most-powerful organization in the Restoration. These modern guys don't have such a leader, and I think that'll be the #1 reason they don't ever become more than just another of the many failed attempts to create a rival RLDS organization to the mainline CofC. Or that at least is my opinion, for whatever that may be worth--thanks again for sharing that!! Interesting stuff!! Cheers!- Ecjmartin (talk) 22:35, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks re coronation

Thank you for the barnstar you kindly awarded me re the Coronation articles. Thanks for the thought & encouragement. However I think the main plaudits should go to yourself for your past & continuing work on the articles. Trafford09 (talk) 12:06, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

You're welcome, but the idea for the division was yours--and an excellent idea it was--and thus, I believe you fully deserve the credit. Thanks again, and thanks for your words here! -- Ecjmartin (talk) 15:41, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Samuel Bogart

The DYK project (nominate) 12:03, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Coronations in Oceania

I added sections for Niue and Rarotonga.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 01:45, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks so much! I made a few stylistic adjustments to your text (hope you didn't mind!), and broke up your Niue paragraph into three smaller ones. Excellent stuff--you learn something new every day! Also, thanks so much for replying to that one gentlemen who asked me if I authored this article to "feel worthy!" I'm still shaking my head at that one! The new info you give here provides an even greater case for keeping it than we had before, and so I thank you once again. Cheers! - Ecjmartin (talk) 02:36, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Interesting find

A very interesting find (ie. Church of Christ (Hancock)))--ARTEST4ECHO (^talk/_contribs) 14:12, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks!! Not much out there on it that I've found yet, but I'm going to keep looking... I actually attended the "basement church" before its current owners had taken possession of it (this would have been around 1992 or 93); it was called "Christ-Centered Christian Church," and claimed no ties to Hancock or her organization. It was still only the "basement church;" there was no structure atop it like there is today. Then that church folded up, and the building sat empty for awhile until the current owners bought it and built the building atop it. Interesting stuff, for sure! Thanks again for your message! - Ecjmartin (talk) 17:04, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Admittedly it was a small short lived sect, but I think there is more out there still. It took only a short search to find the photo, Hancock's "find a grave" page (which reads like an obit) and the Shields reference.

Personally I think the most interesting things about it is the ties to her being the first female founder of a sect and the connection to the Tanners and the UTLM (considering how anti-Mormon they are now It's interesting that they attend other sects in between the LDS church and there current "Ministry"). Until I was almost 18, I was under the impression that there were only two non-defunct Latter day saint sects (LDS & RLDS). Not that anyone taught me that, but that was the only two I ever heard about, since there was a RLDS church between my home and my LDS ward building (and high school). Anyhow, I find the history of the different "splits" very fascinating. How they got there, why the split, what new doctrines they have, etc. This was a very interesting history, to say the least.--ARTEST4ECHO (^talk/_contribs) 17:25, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm sure there is more out there; I wrote this article late yesterday evening, and didn't have the time to look for more than what I found. I'm going to try to remedy that this weekend, and I really appreciate the photo you found. I was a convert to the LDS movement at age 19, and I didn't know there was anything other than LDS until about a year into my membership, when my LDS friends made the "mistake" (I say that tongue-in-cheek) of showing me photos of the Temple Lot and Auditorium. I spent the next nine years studying Strangism, RLDS, Temple Lot, Bickertonite, Cutlerite (was a member/elder in their church for a time), and several others before I left altogether in 1995. It's funny: I'm actually working right now on a book (to pub. to Kindle) on the 1838 "Mormon War" in Missouri; it's about 1/2 done, and I'm hoping to release it sometime this fall... Anyway, I'm like you: I'm terribly fascinated by all these different factions; toward the end of my LDS experience in 1994, I gave a big tour to about 30 Mormon missionaries from the LDS visitor's center here in Independence of all the smaller factions in town; it was a big hit, and one of the most fun things I ever did. Anyway, take care, and thanks so much again for all your help! - Ecjmartin (talk) 19:06, 14 July 2011 (UTC)